Bitcoin Forum

Do you think Bitcoin has gone against Satoshi Nakamoto’s original intentions and embarked on a non-decentralized path?

Satoshi isn't Bitcoin and he should not dictate what Bitcoin is and what direction should development go. He doesn't have the benefit of hindsight and cannot possibly predict whatever would've happened in the years to come and expect Bitcoin to continue the direction that he wanted. Development of Bitcoin should be fluid and evolving as time goes by.

Whether Bitcoin is decentralized, I would say that it still is. There isn't anything that we have done to break the balance between decentralization and utility.

No, Bitcoin hasn't gone against Satoshi Nakamoto's original intentions and it's currently still the same Bitcoin it used to be when Satoshi created it. I know you're trying to say that now centralized exchanges are somehow as main way to purchase Bitcoin and something like that, but that doesn't mean that Bitcoin is centralized itself. Those are just exchanges which someone may need to use in order to purchase Bitcoin and by the way it can still be purchased from decentralized exchanges.

Regulators have always been trying to regulate Bitcoin and make it regulated but that's not possible for anyone to do. Now, it's more considered as an asset than a p2p payment system but still it works as a p2p payment system and no one controls it other than the wallet owners. You still don't need any third party's permission to transfer your Bitcoin and that's enough to say that it's still as decentralized as it used to be during the times of Satoshi Nakamoto.

bitcoin has changed alot from its inception

its no longer the "1 cpu 1 vote" system it was before..
this can be seen by 3 main things

1. ASICS exist now, we are no longer in the 'solo mine' days of block creation via one CPU
2. node consensus, we are no longer in the era of hardened consensus which required majority consent to activate new big features
3. proposals for new features has less of an open door policy due to te core hierarchy and their control of communication platform moderation of technical discussions. their open door previously is now just open book, of open to read but less open to be a writer/editor of said book

we need to keep an eye on these central points of failure and not just be ego stroked back to sleep to be told its ok to let it happen. we need to stay vigilant and scrutinise the changes. to ensure any and all changes benefit bitcoiners and not centralised institutions

also to note:
bitcoin decade ago used to care about each bytes purpose in a transaction, thus then in a block, trying to find efficiencies and ensuring nodes checked every byte met a purpose and validated the data for reasons that were set in rules.. not the same as what we see today

i am a bitcoin maximalist, its the only crypto i see as having longevity and potential for the future. but i am also a realist and not a suckered into sleeping dreamer. so i dont fear talking about the risks and issues

this forum doesnt need zombie salesmen only speaking the utopian dream hype promotions.. readers have already heard the word bitcoin to then have found this site.. so they dont need the utopian dreamer promotion. they want to see the realities and learn about actual bitcoin not promotional material. its called risk mitigation, due diligence

Satoshi created BTC to be a p2p electronic cash that is decentralized, permissionless and censorship resistant; and i believe it is still all of that. However, because of development and growth there have been a lot of changes and shift in other aspects, i.e. some people think that the involvement of centralized institutions and the government, with things like spot etf's is also against Satoshi's visions, which may be true, but some of these are inevitable, and Satoshi could not have designed it all from beginning until today.

BTC still remains decentralized, permissionless and censorship resistant, and i think these 3 points are very important to what Satoshi wanted for the network, and so it is hard to say that we have fully gone against satoshi's intentions.

be cautious of the over use of that buzzword
bitcoin is censorship resistant of an INDIVIDUAL editing/altering/censoring transactions. but bitcoin always had good rules to decide whats worthy of being in the blockchain and decided and agreed by the MASSES using consensus

words like dropped, removed, rejected, orphaned, purged, evicted, stripped, pruned are part of the bitcoin wordage when talking about bitcoin ruleset policy

recently those rules have been relaxed, softened to allow junk and stuff that does not benefit a bitcoiners experience.. but some people(those over using the term censorship resistance) pretend any junk should be allowed and no rules should exist to stop anything bloating the blockchain.. which is a risk to the network and a efficiency drag that goes against a lean blockchain that could scale to benefit bitcoiners

Why do you think it isn't decentralized?

The point of decentralization was that nobody can shut it down and nobody can control it or direct access to it. Those two things are very much true. No person, govt, company, organization, etc can stop bitcoin or control who has access to it. Govts can of course make laws that say it is illegal for their citizens to participate, but they can't actually stop or control access to it entirely.


Look at essentially any other cryptocurrency and you'll find some governing/controlling body residing over that crypto that basically has final control over what direction the crypto takes, and that serves as a single point of failure for that crypto that govt can go after. Bitcoin is simply a technology that runs on many many computers all over the world. I compare it to the end of Terminator 3 when the main characters realize the can't shut SkyNet down because there is nothing to shut down, its just software that runs on computers all over the world. That's decentralization, and that's what Bitcoin has. That doesn't mean its perfectly decentralized, nothing can be. But it absolutely has operational decentralization that gives it the protection that is the goal of decentralization.

Not necessarily gone but with some intervention from other sector people who wanted to control bitcoin, somehow they wanna manage it or regulate it. However since no one can stop this, the big answer is still no. Yes on trading there are some who are buying and selling it as investment purposes but the users can able to use bitcoin freely within decentralized space as long as they want. I doubt this will be centralized or handle even in years as Satoshi makes sure of that.

do you not know of the core devs. or the NYA agreement of/sponsored by major services, where there is the importance of the results of the "COPA cases" .. core devs and major services vs a scammer/fraud.*
things could change if a court decided that core devs and major services have to do as the other party requests

ofcourse core devs will just disband and no longer be devs,. but whomever then decides to develop, and proposes changes then has to abide by the law..

so be risk aware.
*ofcourse he wont win.. but knowledge of bitcoin to know where vulnerabilities lay then inform people what needs defending

No.

Bitcoin is clearly MORE decentralized now than it was when Satioshi was involved.

The question was about "Satoshi's" intentions.  It stopped being "1 CPU 1 vote" before Satoshi left, and he made no effort to prevent that.

And GPU mining existed before Satoshi left. He never expressed any concern about that, or any belief that it drifted from his intentions. The concept of mining pools came into existence before he left as well. He never expressed any concern about that either, or any belief that they drifted from his intentions.

When Satoshi was around, he could just declare that everyone should follow a particular branch of the blockchain and a vast majority would do so. Clearly there is no longer a "single person" that has that power.

When Satoshi was around, he, as a single individual, decided EVERYTHING that went into the core code.

I agree.  But if we are comparing "now" to "Satoshi's vision". Now is clearly better.

 

No matter what others say about it, we should be worried about it. Bitcoin hasn't changed, but we are using it in the wrong way. Bitcoin users are supposed to be anonymous so their money and the user can maintain their privacy. But, the centralized exchanges and other platforms changed everything. We are using centralized exchanges providing our identities.

It's been over a decade now and we are using it in a wrong way. We are binding our bank accounts with the exchanges. We were supposed to be free with our money but...... What is happening now? GazetaBitcoin has a thread about it. You can read if you want. 12 years later and people still don't know to use Bitcoin nor what it's good for (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5310500.0)

I read the post, there is information given why it is better not to use exchanges and banks, the topic of anonymity is not disclosed. Everyone knows that all transactions remain on the blockchain and all bitcoin movements can be tracked. Therefore, you cannot remain 100% anonymous. In any case, third parties may receive information about you or your bitcoin address, for example, from the person to whom you sold bitcoin or from whom you bought it, if he is not anonymous enough. And then further study your transactions and search for data about you. There are many examples where the police have found people who stole bitcoins if they did not use mixers or Monero.
Bitcoin is decentralized, but I think that it is not anonymous enough if you do not make additional efforts to anonymity
Read the article about the "Crypto Dust Attack", this is one of the methods of establishing the identity of the owner of the crypto wallet.

https://cointelegraph.com/explained/what-is-a-crypto-dusting-attack-and-how-do-you-avoid-it (http://)
https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/crypto-dusting-attack-bitcoin (http://)

Exactly. Bitcoin didn't actually become decentralized until Satoshi left, given his control over it. Similar to Buterin with Ethereum, people try to claim Ethereum is decentralized, but one of the major points against that is that Buterin essentially controls Ethereum, whatever he and the other top people decide is what happens with Ethereum, and those top people in Ethereum are never going to relinquish their control. I would bet part of the reason why Satoshi left is because he knew his vision for Bitcoin could never be achieved as long as he stayed.

As for the things that people normally complain about when trying to say Bitcoin is not decentralized, those things are simply the natural result of Bitcoin's growth. Stuff like mining companies and mining pools are the natural consequence of the PoW mining that Satoshi used. Centralized exchanges are the natural consequence of people wanting to be able to easily buy and sell Bitcoin. ETFs, and wealthy people or companies or governments owning Bitcoin is the natural consequence of Bitcoin getting popular. These are simply the consequences of Bitcoin's natural growth. Bitcoin is now far more decentralized than it was in Satoshi's day. Though we do need decentralized privacy-keeping options for buying and selling so everything doesn't just go through centralized exchanges. As far as I know decentralized exchanges for Bitcoin are very small and therefore not good places to buy and sell.

I'd say the ultimate test for Bitcion is:

1. Can it be shut down?
     The answer is no, never.
2. Can it be co-opted and controlled?
     The answer appears to be no, never.
3. Can anyone gain access to and use Bitcoin?
     The answer is mostly yes, though in countries with tighter internet controls on the population and more restrictive controls on society the answer is more like you have to get creative and risk illegality to do so.
4. Can people preserve their privacy while using Bitcoin?
     This one is the only one where Bitcoin doesn't currently score great. You CAN, but its hard to, because the main way to get Bitcoin is through centralized exchanges, and then there are companies whose whole goal is to try to track anyone who goes through centralized exchanges. This is where a larger decentralized exchange ecosystem would come in handy, and it would also help out question #3 a bit as well. But also you have to realize that it is going to be impossible to have perfect privacy, so the answer to this will never be a perfect yes. Because even in a world where you obtain your bitcoin with perfect privacy, when you would use bitcoin to buy something online you have to put in your address, which is associated with your identity, and therefore your identity is then linked to your bitcoin address, and that is the type of information govts would request from companies in order to track where money flows. But still, Bitcoin DEXes getting popular and useful for the average person would I think be the final piece of making sure Bitcoin retains Satoshi's vision for it.

I will try to be short, since I feel like this was already said in this topic, but in a way too long and complicated manner.
1. Bitcoin has change a lot since Satoshi has disappeared. Is it the best direction? That's highly debatable. Is it better than when was left by Satoshi? Yes.
2. The answer to your question is no. But I think that you don't understand what decentralization means here: it's not about the number of pockets holding funds, it's about how many centers mine it and how many wallets have their own copy of the blockchain.

topic is actually about white paper.. so yes its changed alot since

also he clearly expressed he didnt want to be a ruling class decision maker moderating out proposals that defied his desires.
so yes its changed alot since

satoshi was open to community engagement and evolution of mass agreement of good beneficial independently offered proposals.. rather than central point of failures.. so yes it has changed alot since

as for asics, remember how gmax wanted to stop asics evolving their efficiencies due to asic boost potentially ruining/hindering core roadmap plans.. so yes its changed alot since

remember how in 2016 people were telling devs incessantly that core devs proposal for 2017 of miscounting bytes, not validating all bytes which would allow junk un-validated data like books of moby dick to be put into blocks.. and core ignored the risks and pushed and mandated the activation to soften the rules considerably more, anyway... and warnings for years to not work on an after activation fix.. and years later we had the congestion and annoyances of ordinal meme junk to prove the point.. yes bitcoin has changed alot since

Like I said a minute ago in a similar post regarding centralization. It doesn’t matter how much bitcoins are held by these etfs and exchanges, they are the bitcoins of their customers. Unless the exchange is a scam like FTX they cannot sell your bitcoins without your permission.

What is important is that there are bitcoin mining farms all around the world and it’s more decentralized than it was a decade ago. This is what is important.

Imagine China holding 80% of the hashpower and all of a sudden their government tells all their pools to switch to a different fork. It would be disasterious but we don’t have that problem right now.

satoshi was actually open to community engagement and idea's .. just read his post history of getting idea's from the community. heck he even got bug fixes from hal finney the first month of bitcoin running, having never met the guy bitcoin evolved due to lots of feature upgrade proposals from many independent devs even while satoshi was still around

however core have meet-ups of their club, they know and socially circle each other in a hierarchy, and moderate out those they dislike that are not following the core roadmap plan


you might want to check on core and the NYA activity in the last 8 years

Yes, but it is normal. I mean, as time passes, more and more people get to know about bitcoin. Many of them dive deeper inside the rabbit hole and they decide to mine and run their own nodes. These 2 actions improve bitcoin's decentralization.

So as far as I am concerned, bitcoin is more decentralized now, but if you want my opinion, it could have been even more decentralized, especially in terms of nodes. Because running nodes is much much cheaper and easier than mining.

So, I reckon that the number of active nodes (we can only estimate how many there are), should have been larger. According to bitnodes (https://bitnodes.io/nodes/all/#global-bitcoin-nodes) there are ~50k nodes. Of course the real number is higher, but again, I would like to see it growing much more.

The mission of Bitcoin has remained the same and as long as the network is not manipulated in any form, I think Satoshi legacy is still in intact. The price is growing and will grow more, the network has seen a solid growth from transaction to speed without compromising decentralization and scalability, thanks to segwit sofyfork and lastly the LN even if the adoption hasn't been massive as many people anticipate for its growth.

Bitcoin ETF are not my problem because Bitcoin is an open market, anyone with money can buy as long as they has money and they can do whatever they like with their bitcoin. As long as 80% of people hold the remaining circulating supply, the rest can do what they think it's good for Bitcoin instead of focusing on the main vision of Satoshi.

However, even if there are some places Satoshi can't be impressed about Bitcoin, he knows what government is capable of doing and I believe that was the reason why he went into hidden to protect the network, the people around him and the investors because he knows that the government don't like anything related to what they can't control and Bitcoin isn't that of asset you can control and that's pain them.

Whether it did or didn't, Satoshi's got no say in how bitcoin works anymore at this point. His brainchild's began to grow its own pair of wings and fly away from the coop, away from Satoshi's influence and reach so no matter how much bitcoin's strayed from the ideal path that Satoshi has created, if he even created any in the first place, it wouldn't matter at all because bitcoin's the people's property now and not his. Personally speaking I think Satoshi even intended for it to be this way, otherwise he wouldn't implement a specific feature that will eventually centralize the whole supply of the network to the few millions/thousands of users at the upper echelon of the bitcoin hierarchy. He understands that bitcoin, as decentralized as it is isn't going to be decentralized through and through, and would require a little bit of centralization to service millions of people with no issue.

I think you're overthinking this, the fact that you're appealing to someone who didn't even bother to show his/her/their face to the public's a little too tangential. I say you focus on your investment first and foremost if you have any, and make Satoshi's desires the least of your worries.

Bitcoin is still on track for the purpose it was created for by Satoshi and has even become more popular in today's world. El Salvador has approved it as a legal tender, so many institutions have invested huge amounts of money in Bitcoin, and some businesses are also accepting Bitcoin as a means of payment. What more can Satoshi want if not the success of Bitcoin? According to Satoshi, Bitcoin was designed to serve as a p2p means of payment between individuals who agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment. Another reason why bitcoin was developed, according to Satoshi, is so that individuals who believe in it will not have to rely on any financial authority for the control of their funds. Bitcoin was created to give individuals privacy over how they manage their funds privately, without their identities being revealed unintentionally. 

So, I still see that all the reasons for creating Bitcoin are still in track, despite the fact that the government is looking for every possible way to make the usability of Bitcoin centralized with the help of those centralized platforms for Bitcoin exchange, and that's the reason why it's advised for investors to stay away from KYC. In order to be more private, some people prefer to use mixers. 

Using the wrong way....according to who?

I would agree that using it as a speculative investment (let's be honest, that is what 95% of all current buyers use it for) is very different from the transaction-oriented, pseudo-anonymous intent of Satoshi. But most of the early miners of Bitcoin were cyberpunks. White males between 30-50 years old, who now are either dead or 45-65 years old. Not exactly a cross-section of society, today. Gen Z (to my surprise) seems to care less about anonymity. They think privacy is dead. They have very different priorities and values than people our age. They will decide for themselves what Bitcoin is useful for. It's not a right way or wrong way... it is just what... is. And we should be stoic about it rather than wishing it is how it was "back in the day," IMHO.

This  is a very interesting debate.  Many of you have commented according to your own understanding of Bitcoin Network and its incentives Bitcoin as Cryptocurrency or economic asset.  Well, whether anything has changed or not depends on the periocular matter involved.  As far as you can see if there are any major changes and alterations.  As for my own assessment and comments, what I see in the Bitcoin community is war between two groups who are fighting each other to become the in-charged dictum papadom.   What I mean by the two words dictum papadom is taking advantage by over taking others by dictatorial,  unconventional and despotic exercise of power.

You can debate as you like and pinpoint the core changes which have taken place and debate on whether it is good for Bitcoin and its users ?    As you know it is CSW over emphasizing the matter to convince people that BTC is not Bitcoin and BSV what he called 'Satoshi's Vision'  is Bitcoin.  Well, according to the Bitcoin White Paper which was written by the Inventor of Bitcoin that Bitcoin is an electronic cash system which is a decentralized digital financial service using an electronic coin known as Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a numerical economic value of a financial transaction.  Which is a standard feature and the total amounts are limited   to 21000000 units.  Now the network maintenance and its further developments are respectively managed by the Bitcoin Core team.  If Craig Wright tries to hijack the Bitcoin Core and impose his own unitary rules for Bitcoin, if he wins the case it will be a foggy dream for him. He has forgotten the slogan, 'Vires in Numberis'.

Even though the majority of people do not understand, what is the difference when they speak that Bitcoin is BTC ?
I must elaborate here, that BTC term the inventor used is not B, T and C as appeared in the word written for as Bitcoin but BTC stand for Bitcoin Trans Cash as BTC ,  Craig is not Satoshi neither he is the inventor of Bitcoin and Blockchain nor he is the author of Bitcoin.  As he is boldly claiming and impregnating someone else's pseudonym and trying to hijack the Bitcoin for the second time claiming BSV is the original Bitcoin, and he is the inventor of it is a pathetically motivated intention. BSV is not Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision. BSV means Bitcoin Security Version.   The inventor cloned it from the original Bitcoin Blockchain and he cloned it just after he mined 14 Blocks. Before cloning again and calling it Ethereum. No, Ethereum  was not invented by Vitalik Buterin. He has been hired to work on it by someone else.   So, as some of you think Bitcoin is no longer decentralized as before or Bitcoin is more decentralized now, is your own perception.

When the real Satoshi Nakamoto will return his holiday from Sirius (Σείριoς) he will unveil the mystery of the secret Bitcoin Manifesto known as Bitcoin Magna Charta, that will provide proper understanding of Bitcoin White Paper and its true decentralized nature.

The Bitcoin White Paper only explains the technical aspect of the P2P Blockchain mechanism.

Before ETFs approval its not but now yes ut is marked on a centralized path, as in the latest statement of Gary he said BTC is not that decentralized (Source (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485589.msg63683454#msg63683454) So, the point is when these ETFs got approved hell lot of money flows into BTC and that money is causing huge fluctuations in the market. The good thing is these companies are trading OTC, which means under the table, which is not causing that much pressure in the market. Otherwise, the volumes would be F**ed. The point is, that BTC's value can easily be manipulated considering the amount US ETFs are trading now. That's billions of dollars.

I read somewhere that 11 ETF firms have around 111+k BTC in there possession so that's not really big to manipulate the whole market, but it that the sentiments of the whole words are keeping a tight eye on these ETFs, like they matter a lot (which indeed they are, but only for investors), For BTC enthusiast, its a step toward centralization but technically speaking BTC can't be centralized in any time. Check the number of nodes, if you want to contribute then start a node, don't start mining just start validating, that would be a contribution toward the decentralization of BTC.

If you have an account in a centralized exchange, you are using it incorrectly. Now, ask people or create a pool about how many people have an account in a centralized exchange and see the result. You are asking it like you never heard it. Did Satoshi ask us to use centralized exchanges? No, never. Bitcoin users are supposed to be anonymous. Right?

If you or others are using centralized exchanges providing the KYC, don't you think they are using it in the wrong way? What is your argument against my statement? Would you like to elaborate more about it?

I agree in general with your statement. Playing devil's advocate though, since I have been there, when someone first starts learning about bitcoin, they may not be very knowleageable in terms of privacy. So, I 'll speak for myself here, saying that, at first, I knew I had to take my coins off of exchanges, so I did. But, the mistake was made... I bought some coins through CEXs because I wanted to buy bitcoin as soon as I learnt about it. I was fascinated by it. Then, I joined the forum and I started going deep down the privacy rabbit hole. This is where I decided to stop using CEXs. But, I mean, mistakes can happen. The point is, we should fix them.

721btc all combined

grayscale had 620k pre-launch when others had none
now grayscale has 456k (164k shuffled to other ETF in OTC backdoor deals) since launch
and now the total of the other 10etf(excluding grayscale) is 265k btc

majority of it is named as "ETF held", .. on paper.. but is physically on keys owned by coinbase
coinbase is still holdng ~633k on behalf of 8 of 10 etf
vaneck and fidelity have the other 87.6k in other places
(numbers as of the 16th feb 2024)

I think that bitcoin still has its fundamental characteristics that makes it what it is. Satoshi created bitcoin as a breakthrough in terms of finance and technology and if you are a man who has pioneered this kind of development I know for sure that you know how developing technologies work better than anyone.

He must have foreseen that the world will take so interest into bitcoin and create things out of it for the sake of development. Bitcoin in itself is still decentralized. The world has just changed enormously that it has now created various ways to acquire bitcoin and it works because it caters to different kinds of people and their personal needs and goals.

What's wrong? that's what a complete freedom is!

Imagine if Satoshi or majority of Bitcoin developers are force people to use decentralized exchange and non custodial wallet, then they will censor every transactions that goes to centralized exchanges, it is a decentralization? nothing different with centralization.

Some people choose non custodial wallet because they don't trust centralization, while some people choose custodial wallet because they trust more in centralization, let people choose their own choices.

The moment that we see bitcoin as an investment and not a currency that's used to trade goods and services most of the time is the moment that we've strayed away from what Satoshi wanted bitcoin to be which is a digital money, it's not a bad thing that this happened though because a lot of lives have changed because of bitcoin becoming more valuable, plus these premium value that bitcoin have, it's a good thing because it still sends the message that privacy shouldn't be compromised and that banks are oppressing their very user base with how they're still using the same old system way back to the time of the Templar Knights (the time which banking was allegedly invented), imagine if bitcoin is still worth a cent, people wouldn't be paying attention to what it's try to protest.

Bitcoin is still decentralised but it has failed as a currency because of the decision to not upgrade the block size. This is a pretty easy fix for the future but before it is done bitcoin is crippled and can not be used in the intended manner.

Bitcoin has a lot to offer and we should always be open to the opportunities that it brings. So the idea is that Bitcoin should roll with the punches and not stick rigidly to Satoshi's original plan. Adapting as things change makes sense and keeping the balance between decentralization and usefulness

Governments are gradually imposing regulations on bitcoin, and large institutions and centralized exchanges also hold a lot of bitcoin. But that doesn't mean bitcoin's decentralized nature has been broken, it's still the same bitcoin it was when Satoshi created it. The proof is that if you hold your bitcoins in non-custodial wallet, no one can take your bitcoins, not even the government.

I understand what you mean, but we live in a government-controlled world and what is happening is inevitable, and bitcoin is no exception. We are in a centralized world and there is nothing we can do to change or keep bitcoin completely away from governments and centralized institutions. We are in a centralized world and there is nothing we can do to change or keep bitcoin completely away from governments and centralized institutions.

Not only you, but most of us made the same mistakes. I can speak for myself. I have used Coinbase as my first Bitcoin wallet. In some countries, most people still learn about Bitcoin from the exchange groups or trading groups. They do not see Bitcoin as one of the privacy enhancement tools. They use Bitcoin and other crypto to learn to trade on those centralized exchanges.

Once we do the KYC, we cannot undo that. My identities are already online and I never know if their 3rd party provider going to sell my KYC info on the darknet or not. I don't know if you are aware or not, but a well-known exchange accepts the claim that their 3rd party partner (who does the KYC process) sells the user information on the internet.

I am not aware, but to be honest, I am also not surprised. I am not sure why the info is worth selling/buying. I mean, I can totally understand that governments may want to surveil bitcoin and, in this effort, they will need to ask KYC exchanges for clients' info. But, who else would be interested in buying them and why? Marketing companies? Or anything more shady?

Yeah, everything that is created by humans tends to evolve, and cryptocurrency projects are no exception. So it's true that Bitcoin has changed and it isn't how it was when it was created or launched by Satoshi, however, I don't think that we can question its decentralized nature because no matter what, Bitcoin is still completely decentralized and I see no way for it to become non-decentralized or centralized as to say.

Satoshi said himself that a decade from now, when he launched Bitcoin, there will either be no transaction or a lot of transactions, and by this, he meant that it will either become too famous or abandoned by everyone, and his prediction became true, people adopted Bitcoin and it has evolved to become what it is now.

I don't think bitcoin goes against the original intention of Satoshi Nakamoto bitcoin is decentralized everyone knows you mentioned centralized. It cannot be bought unless centralized exchange sites support it increasing its popularity in crypto. No one can control the crypto market and there is no guarantee to go against Satoshi Nakamoto's real identity is unknown. Bitcoin's work as a decentralized currency will be complete.

Satoshi envisioned bitcoin for p2p transactions but I Don see the reality of that happening now gas fees are still outrageous and I won't like to pay such amount for my daily transactions, and not every one can run a node to use lightning network, bitcoin is mainly uses as an asset that would yeild high income, satoshi did good job in building the framework for the world's greatest asset making it so scare, I won't say this is the reality he wanted but at least his dream got to stay alive and I am still enjoying decentralization out of it.

Not everyone on the internet does legal things, right? There are always some bad people. You never know if your identity was used by a hacker or a bad person. You should consider reading What happens when your identity is stolen -- real story || Avoid CEXs! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5444158). The identity of that guy was stolen somehow and he was in massive trouble for that.

You can also read Coinbase Admits Its Former Data Provider Sold Client Data (https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/coinbase-admits-its-former-data-provider-sold-client-data/). We don't know what are they doing with those user's data. But, whenever you search for a user profile on the internet, you will find some full profiles of some citizens. How do you think those data were collected? I know some survey worker pretend to be USA citizen and use those data to make their profile.

Satoshi Nakamoto sighted the morals and how the technology would attend to economical preferences to decongest inflations in a global range.
The potential capacities Bitcoin runs today is the program development initiated by him Satoshi Nakamoto that is mainly concerned about the benefits of its initiatives for source of payment and the investment motives. However, the volatile potentials that determines the value of the digital technology is determined by the number of supplies and demands which is where it is not controlled by a centralized  authorities while the transactions is leaned on a P2P.
Therein, Satoshi Nakamoto is situated with limitations towards the developments and directives in the digital currency of a decentralized system

Now it makes sense. So criminals buy fake IDs and use them for forgery. Yeah I am not surprised, it just never crossed my mind that the way to buy the IDs is from KYC exchanges. But since they require KYC, you can be sure that at least they own the information about their clients. If they are willing to sell it for illicit usage, is a whole other story _crime.

Well, if we talk about personal data collection, I think not only centralized exchanges are selling customer data to other third parties but even banks and other organizations like apple or Google are also doing that. That is why many people do not participate in the cryptocurrency market but their information is sold on the internet.

In my opinion, if we are already citizens of a country that has been issued an ID and use devices and services provided by organizations, then our identity has long since ceased to belong to us. And are you sure you don't use your bank account, insurance card, smartphone, email...

Look, doing KYC on a crypto exchange and doing it in a bank is not the same thing. When we do the KYC on a bank, they do not know if we own any crypto or not. Your apple account or a google account does not ask for your real identity or your photo. I do not know about apple but I know about google. I use Gmail and other google services but it never ask for my identity. Even if it ask for names or birthday date, you can easily give incorrect information and noting will happen.

For banks, they do the KYC process on their office and the chance of identity stealing is minimum. But, the purpose of using crypto is to maintain your privacy. We do not use banks for privacy enhancement. So, it does not matter if we do KYC there or not. But, when we KYC on crypto exchange or a Casino, they know we are crypto users and this is not good for privacy. Right?

There are many different databases that can identify a person. I think that in modern times it is not very difficult to match your bank accounts, your mobile phone number and your Apple or Google account. For example, if you bought a subscription or an app. Of course kyc on an exchange is an easy opportunity for third parties to get your data. But if you use bank payments, that also reveals your identity.

You guys are not getting what I am talking about. Crypto privacy and real-life privacy are not the same. Please do not mixup Crypto with your real-life thinks like banks and other things. I have a different identity in the cyber space. Nobody knows what is my real name. Not even my closest forum friends. Even if they meet me in real life, they won't know that I am Learn Bitcoin.

No matter what happens with your Bank account or your identity. I understand that there is a possibility of identity theft. If it's get stolen from a bank, you can sue them. Centralized exchanges are the platform where people mixup their virtual identity and their real identity. People do KYC to store their crypto currency.

They are certainly different but they are crossing each other and in either cryptocurrency or bank, fiat currency, we all have our privacy, identity to secure or hide. I don't see activities and interactions with cryptocurrencies can be called as non-real-life things.

We actually use both cryptocurrency, fiat currency, banks and many platforms so if our privacy, identity is broken, leaked on one or some of those areas and platforms, we lose our identity privacy forever. It is only matter of how near or far it will be spread around and we have no chance to control how people will spread it or sale it for their benefits.

If we care about privacy, we have to do it at all places, not only in either cryptocurrency or bank.

How it's possible to protect your privacy on banks?

Banks' employees: Sir, could you give me your ID card, please?
You : No, I want to protect my privacy.
Banks' employees: I'm sorry, but we need your ID card since it's one of requirement to create an account.
You: No, my privacy is way more important STFU.

If you use DEX, the banks won't know if you trade Bitcoin because you're doing it P2P, only the sender know you (but they only know they've transact with you, they don't know you real name, face etc.)

Exactly. You got my point buddy. We can't be anonymous in real life. You cannot be on a flight without your passport. But, when you buy a ticket, you must show your ID or passport. There are some services that we cannot take without giving a photo or our identity. Such as opening a bank account, buying a new SIM card, buying a plane ticket, etc etc.

But, if you have other options, go for it. The fact I tried to point out is that your banks do not know that you have cryptocurrency until you tie your bank account on an exchange and buy cryptocurrency with your bank account. But, people buy Bitcoin using their cards these days which is breaking their privacy.